1. Ethical Principles

All participants in the publication process are expected to uphold the following principles:

• Honesty and Scientific Integrity: Research findings, data, methods, and interpretations must be reported accurately and without fabrication, falsification, or deliberate misrepresentation.
• Transparency and Accountability: Authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher must accept responsibility for their respective roles and disclose relevant information necessary for ethical evaluation.
• Fairness and Impartiality: Editorial and review decisions must be based on scholarly considerations and must not be influenced by inappropriate personal, institutional, financial, or discriminatory factors.
• Respect for Research Participants: Research must protect the rights, dignity, privacy, safety, and welfare of human participants and comply with relevant animal welfare requirements.
• Confidentiality: Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, personal information, and confidential editorial communications must be appropriately protected.
• Integrity of the Scholarly Record: Errors and ethical concerns must be evaluated fairly and addressed through proportionate editorial or post-publication action when necessary.

2. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for the originality, accuracy, ethical conduct, and scholarly integrity of their submitted work. Every listed author must understand and fulfill the responsibilities associated with authorship.

2.1 Originality and Plagiarism

• Submitted manuscripts must present original scholarly work or appropriately identified and permitted forms of prior dissemination.
• All sources, quotations, data, images, and intellectual contributions obtained from other works must be appropriately acknowledged and cited.
• Plagiarism, unattributed text reuse, misleading paraphrasing, and inappropriate reuse of previously published material are prohibited.
• Authors must disclose relevant preprints, earlier publications, and substantial overlaps with related manuscripts.
• Authors are responsible for verifying that all references are authentic, accurate, and relevant to the claims they support.

2.2 Data Integrity and Reproducibility

• Research data, observations, clinical outcomes, statistical results, and images must be reported accurately.
• Fabrication, falsification, selective manipulation intended to mislead, and misrepresentation of findings are prohibited.
• Research methods must be described with sufficient detail to permit appropriate scholarly evaluation and, where feasible, replication.
• Authors must retain relevant research records and supporting materials in accordance with applicable ethical, institutional, legal, and funder requirements.
• The Editorial Office may request underlying data, analytical documentation, original images, or other relevant evidence to verify reported findings.

2.3 Multiple and Redundant Publication

• A manuscript must not be under simultaneous consideration by another journal.
• Substantial duplicate or redundant publication without appropriate disclosure and justification is prohibited.
• Authors must disclose related manuscripts, overlapping datasets, and previous dissemination that may affect the originality assessment.
• Legitimate secondary publications, translations, or extensions of prior research require appropriate disclosure and editorial authorization where applicable.

2.4 Authorship and Contributor Accountability

Health Nexus applies authorship principles consistent with the ICMJE recommendations. All listed authors must satisfy the following four conditions:

1. Make a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
2. Draft the manuscript or critically review it for important intellectual content.
3. Approve the final version to be published.
4. Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work and to ensure that questions concerning accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved.

All authors must approve the submission and the final publication. Individuals who contribute to the work but do not meet all authorship criteria should be appropriately acknowledged, with permission where required.

Gift authorship, honorary authorship, ghost authorship, and unauthorized changes to authorship are unacceptable. Requests to add, remove, or rearrange authors after submission must be explained and supported by written agreement from the affected authors, subject to editorial assessment.

2.5 Competing Interests and Funding

• Authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial competing interests.
• Funding sources, grants, sponsorship, and other material support must be reported accurately.
• The role of funders or sponsors in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and publication decisions must be disclosed where relevant.
• Authors must provide an explicit declaration when no relevant competing interests exist.

2.6 Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

Research involving human participants, identifiable health information, biological materials, or animals must comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements.

• Human participant research must receive approval from an appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board when required.
• Valid ethics exemptions or waivers must be documented and explained where applicable.
• Informed consent must be obtained unless an appropriate waiver or other lawful exception applies.
• Patient confidentiality and the privacy of research participants must be protected.
• Publication of identifiable clinical information or images requires appropriate consent or another valid legal and ethical basis.
• Animal studies must comply with relevant institutional approvals and recognized animal welfare standards.

2.7 Clinical Trial Registration

Clinical trials must be prospectively registered in an appropriate publicly accessible trial registry in accordance with the journal's requirements and applicable international standards.

• Registration should occur before enrollment of the first participant.
• Authors must provide the registry name, registration number, and registration date.
• Clinical trial protocols, amendments, and deviations must be reported transparently.
• Retrospective registration or incomplete registration information may affect editorial eligibility and requires explanation.

2.8 Artificial Intelligence and Responsible Use

Authors may use artificial intelligence and AI-assisted tools in accordance with the journal's published policies, provided that their use is transparent, ethically appropriate, and subject to human oversight.

• AI tools cannot be listed as authors or assume responsibility for scholarly work.
• Authors must disclose relevant AI use in manuscript preparation, research methods, data analysis, or content generation as required by the journal.
• All AI-assisted content, references, analyses, and interpretations must be independently reviewed and verified.
• AI-generated or modified data, figures, images, and results must not be presented deceptively as original empirical evidence.
• Confidential patient information and restricted research data must not be transferred to external AI services without appropriate authorization and safeguards.

Detailed requirements are provided in the AI & Research Integrity Policy.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play an essential role in evaluating the scientific quality, integrity, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers must act independently, objectively, and confidentially.

• Objectivity: Provide evidence-based, fair, and constructive evaluations without personal criticism or inappropriate bias.
• Confidentiality: Protect unpublished manuscripts, research data, author information, and editorial communications.
• Competing Interests: Disclose relationships or interests that may affect impartiality and decline or withdraw from review where necessary.
• Professional Competence: Accept review assignments only when appropriately qualified and able to provide a meaningful evaluation.
• Timeliness: Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or promptly inform the Editorial Office of foreseeable delays.
• Research Integrity: Inform editors of suspected plagiarism, relevant undisclosed overlap, methodological concerns, or potentially misleading research findings.
• Prohibition of Misappropriation: Do not use unpublished ideas, data, or findings obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.
• AI-Assisted Review: Reviewers must follow the journal's AI policy, obtain editorial authorization where required, preserve confidentiality, and remain responsible for all review judgments. Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to unauthorized external AI services.

4. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for maintaining a fair, independent, confidential, and academically rigorous publication process. Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit and the applicable publication standards.

• Fair Editorial Assessment: Evaluate submissions according to scope, originality, methodological quality, research ethics, and scholarly contribution.
• Independent Decision-Making: Make editorial decisions without inappropriate influence from authors, reviewers, publishers, sponsors, or commercial interests.
• Appropriate Reviewer Selection: Invite qualified reviewers according to subject expertise and methodological relevance while considering potential conflicts of interest.
• Confidentiality and Data Protection: Protect submitted materials, reviewer identities, confidential correspondence, and relevant personal information.
• Conflict Management: Disclose relevant editorial competing interests and arrange independent handling where impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
• Research Integrity Oversight: Assess allegations of publication misconduct fairly, proportionately, and confidentially, taking account of available evidence and relevant COPE guidance.
• Correction of the Scholarly Record: Take appropriate action when credible evidence establishes errors, unreliable findings, or other concerns requiring public notice.
• Responsible AI Use: Ensure that any permitted AI-assisted editorial activity protects confidentiality, remains subject to human oversight, and does not replace accountable editorial judgment.

Editors should follow relevant COPE procedures when managing suspected misconduct, disputes, complaints, appeals, and post-publication concerns. An allegation alone does not establish misconduct, and appropriate opportunities for explanation and verification should be provided.

5. Publisher Responsibilities

Panorama Scholarly Group (PSG), as the publisher of Health Nexus, supports responsible scholarly publishing and the maintenance of appropriate editorial and publication infrastructure.

• Editorial Independence: Support the authority of qualified editors to make academic and scientific decisions independently.
• Publication Infrastructure: Maintain appropriate systems for manuscript management, editorial communication, digital dissemination, and publication metadata.
• Research Integrity Support: Cooperate with editors in addressing ethical concerns and implementing appropriate decisions concerning the scholarly record.
• Transparency: Support clear communication of editorial policies, copyright and licensing arrangements, publication charges, and relevant author responsibilities.
• Digital Preservation: Support appropriate measures for the continued accessibility, preservation, and integrity of published scholarly content.
• Commercial Independence: Ensure that financial considerations and publication charge arrangements do not improperly influence manuscript acceptance or rejection.

6. Research Misconduct and Editorial Investigation

Health Nexus takes credible concerns regarding research and publication integrity seriously. The journal distinguishes between allegations, errors, questionable research practices, and misconduct established through appropriate assessment.

6.1 Potential Research and Publication Misconduct

Concerns may include, but are not limited to:

• Plagiarism and significant unattributed textual or intellectual overlap.
• Fabrication, falsification, or misleading alteration of research data or results.
• Inappropriate manipulation or misrepresentation of research images.
• Improper authorship attribution or deliberate concealment of relevant contributors.
• Undisclosed redundant publication or simultaneous submission.
• Manipulation of the peer review or editorial process.
• Misrepresentation of ethical approval, participant consent, or clinical trial registration.
• Fabricated references, deceptive AI-generated materials, or serious undisclosed AI-related practices.
• Materially misleading disclosure of funding, competing interests, or supporting research evidence.

6.2 Investigation Procedure

Allegations and concerns will be assessed proportionately, with reference to applicable COPE guidance and the circumstances of the case.

1. Preliminary Assessment: The Editorial Office reviews the nature of the concern and the available supporting information.
2. Request for Clarification: Where appropriate, the journal contacts the authors or other relevant parties and provides an opportunity to respond.
3. Evidence Review: Editors may examine manuscripts, data, images, supplementary documents, similarity findings, or relevant correspondence.
4. Independent Consultation: The journal may obtain expert advice or contact an institution, research ethics committee, funder, or relevant authority where justified.
5. Editorial Determination: Appropriate action is determined according to the evidence, seriousness of the issue, effect on research reliability, and applicable policies.
6. Documentation: Relevant decisions and communications are recorded in accordance with appropriate confidentiality and record-management requirements.

7. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

Health Nexus is committed to preserving the accuracy and integrity of the published scholarly record. Post-publication notices are intended to inform readers, correct material errors, and address questions concerning the reliability of published research.

7.1 Corrections

A correction may be issued when a published article contains an identifiable error or omission that requires amendment but does not invalidate the article's principal findings. Corrections should identify the affected article, describe the issue, and explain the changes made.

7.2 Retractions

Retraction may be necessary when reliable evidence establishes that the findings or conclusions of a published article cannot be relied upon because of serious errors, unreliable data, unethical research, substantial plagiarism, or other significant integrity concerns.

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the scholarly record and protecting readers. It is not primarily intended as punishment. Retraction may be appropriate regardless of whether the underlying problem resulted from deliberate misconduct or an honest error.

7.3 Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when substantial questions about an article's integrity or reliability remain unresolved and readers need to be informed while additional evidence or investigation is pending. Its use is determined by the seriousness and circumstances of the concern.

7.4 Transparency of Notices

• Notices must clearly identify the affected publication.
• The nature and basis of the correction, retraction, or concern should be explained appropriately.
• Notices should be freely accessible and linked to the original article.
• Retracted articles ordinarily remain accessible with clear identification of their retracted status.
• Removal of published content is reserved for exceptional legal, privacy, safety, or comparable circumstances.
• Where required, article metadata and relevant publishing records should be updated to reflect the publication's current status.

Decisions concerning corrections and retractions are informed by current COPE guidance and the available evidence. Authors should normally be provided an opportunity to respond, but an appropriate notice may still be issued when necessary to protect the scholarly record.

8. Data Sharing and Transparency

Health Nexus supports responsible data sharing, transparent reporting, and reproducible research. Data availability requirements are governed by the journal's published Data Policy.

• Data Accuracy: Research data and analytical results must be reported accurately and sufficiently documented.
• Appropriate Sharing: Authors are encouraged to deposit suitable datasets, protocols, analysis code, and supplementary materials in recognized repositories.
• Access Conditions: Restricted or controlled-access data must be accompanied by an explanation of relevant conditions and procedures.
• Participant Protection: Identifiable patient data and sensitive research information must not be publicly disclosed without an appropriate ethical and legal basis.
• Research Verification: The Editorial Office may request supporting data or documentation during review or after publication when necessary to assess the integrity of reported findings.
• Transparency of Restrictions: Legitimate ethical, legal, contractual, privacy, or institutional limitations on data sharing must be disclosed accurately.

Authors should consult the Data Policy for detailed requirements concerning repositories, access conditions, restricted data, and supporting documentation.

9. Ethical Oversight for Medical and Integrative Research

Health Nexus publishes research across conventional medicine, TCM, biomedical sciences, public health, and interdisciplinary health research. All contributions must satisfy ethical and scientific standards appropriate to their research questions, methods, and potential effects on patients or participants.

9.1 Clinical and Biomedical Research

• Clinical investigations must provide appropriate ethical approval and informed consent information.
• Interventions, procedures, outcome measures, and relevant safety information must be reported accurately.
• Claims concerning efficacy, safety, diagnosis, or treatment must be supported by evidence appropriate to the study design.
• Clinical trial registration and applicable reporting guidelines must be followed.

9.2 Traditional Chinese Medicine Research

• Research involving herbal medicines must describe relevant formulations, ingredients, botanical identification, preparation, dosage, and quality control where applicable.
• Clinical investigations of traditional interventions must report relevant safety considerations, adverse events, and limitations.
• Acupuncture and related interventions should be reported in sufficient detail to support independent assessment and replication.
• Classical and theoretical scholarship must demonstrate appropriate source accuracy, interpretive rigor, and scholarly justification.
• Historical use or traditional theoretical significance must not be presented as conclusive evidence of clinical efficacy or safety.

9.3 Integrative and Interdisciplinary Research

• Studies combining medical traditions or research disciplines must explain the rationale and methods for their interdisciplinary approach.
• Research involving combined interventions must address relevant risks, interactions, outcome assessment, and methodological limitations.
• Claims about integrated or complementary approaches must be supported by appropriate empirical or theoretical evidence.
• Research conducted within one medical discipline remains eligible for publication when aligned with the journal's scope and ethical requirements.

9.4 Public Health and Health Systems Research

• Population research must appropriately address participant protection, confidentiality, and data governance.
• Policy evaluations and observational studies must clearly describe their methodological assumptions and limitations.
• Community-based investigations must respect relevant ethical review requirements and legitimate community interests.
• Public health and policy recommendations must be proportionate to the supporting evidence.

10. Post-Publication Discussions, Complaints, and Appeals

Health Nexus recognizes the importance of scholarly criticism, post-publication dialogue, and fair mechanisms for reviewing editorial decisions. Authors, readers, reviewers, and other relevant parties may raise substantiated concerns regarding published research or editorial procedures.

10.1 Post-Publication Discussion

Constructive, evidence-based discussion of published articles is welcomed. Concerns involving research methods, data reliability, interpretation, ethics, or publication integrity should identify the relevant article and provide sufficiently specific supporting information.

10.2 Complaints

Complaints may concern editorial conduct, peer review procedures, publication ethics, conflicts of interest, or post-publication handling. The Editorial Office will assess concerns impartially and may request clarification or additional documentation.

10.3 Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they identify a material factual, procedural, or scholarly concern that may have affected the outcome.

Appeals should:

• Identify the manuscript and the decision being appealed.
• Explain the specific grounds for reconsideration.
• Provide relevant evidence or supporting documentation.
• Address disputed findings or procedural concerns professionally and directly.

Where practicable, an appeal should be assessed by an editor or adviser who was not primarily responsible for the original decision. An appeal does not guarantee that a previous editorial decision will be reversed.

10.4 Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

Complaints and appeals will be handled with appropriate confidentiality, impartiality, and regard for the rights and responsibilities of affected parties. The journal may seek independent advice when necessary and will document substantive decisions according to its internal procedures.

For detailed procedures, consult the Complaints & Appeals Policy.